By Charmaine P. Lirio
AS A SUSPENDED Director General of the Philippine National Police, did Alan L. Purisima have any authority or power to advise President Benigno S. Aquino III about the PNP-Special Action Force operation in Mamasapano, Maguindanao?
While a suspension order is “a preventive measure, not a penalty,” court rulings say that such an order “temporarily prohibits the exercise of functions of the respondent’s office.”
President Benigno S. Aquino III converses with Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Alan Purisima during the 34th Association of Southeast Asian Nations Chiefs of Police (ASEANAPOL) Conference at the Luzon Ballroom of the Sofitel Philippine Plaza in Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City on Tuesday (May 13, 2014). The Philippines is a founding member of the ASEANAPOL which held its first conference in Manila in 1981 and has been holding annual conferences since hosted by member-agencies. The PNP last hosted the 23rd ASEANAPOL conference in Manila on September 2003 | Photo by Rey Baniquet | Malacañang Photo Bureau | PCOO
Last week at the Senate, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago lashed out at Purisima who said he attended a meeting with the President on Jan. 9, 2015 about the PNP’s “Operation Plan Exodus” in Maguindanao. Purisima resigned his post only on Feb. 7, 2015 or two months into his six-month suspension order from the Ombudsman.
Citing Aldovino v. COMELEC, Santiago questioned Purisima’s authority to advise the President even while he is serving out his suspension order.
In that case, the Supreme Court explained that a preventive suspension order may be issued by virtue of the Local Government Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or the Ombudsman Act.
Under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act, preventive suspension may be ordered by the Ombudsman or his deputy “if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.”
The Ombudsman placed Purisima and other police officials under a six-month preventive suspension in December 2014 in relation to a graft complaint alleging irregularities in the PNP’s 2011 contract with a courier service. Purisima is also facing investigation for plunder.
Preventive suspension is a preliminary step in an investigation, which serves to prevent an accused from using his office to influence the prosecution of a case against him. It “gives a premium to the protection of the service rather than to the interests of the individual office holder.”
Based on previous court rulings, a preventive suspension order:
* Is a preventive measure, not a penalty
* Temporarily prohibits the exercise of functions of the respondent’s office
* Is suspension without pay
* Continues until the case is terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but should not exceed six months, per the Ombudsman Act
* Does not strip the accused of the title to his office
* Once lifted, reinstates the official to the exercise of his position.
For violating the suspension order against him, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has warned that Purisima may be charged with usurpation of authority, according to a GMA News report. Usurpation of authority is a crime punishable with imprisonment of up to six years under the Revised Penal Code.
References:
Aldovino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 184836, December 23, 2009. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/184836.htm
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, et al v. Jesus D. Francisco Sr., G.R. No. 172553, December 14, 2011. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/172553.htm#_ftnref12
Ombudsman v. Valeroso, G.R. No. 167828, April 2, 2007. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167828.htm